Originally posted by darvlayCain either porked his own Sister, his own Mother or both. What a swingin' cat.

What sister? I thought there was only C&A, then later, sister I guess. Either he waited ten or twenty years and porked his own sister (NOW I undersand why the human race is so screwed up) or there were people around who were not made by god. Or something.

Originally posted by sonhouseWell it seems clear they can be trusted to reproduce....

Women's bodies are the conduit through which the species reproduces, it is true. However, women's bodies miscarry, while women themselves also have abortions, flouting their reproductive duty. And is a woman identical with her body?

Originally posted by Bosse de NageGiven the limited genetic stock available in the biblical account of human origins, why do we not all display the signs of chronic inbreeding?

I don't know.

But it took 900 some years for Adam to wear down and die along with many others of that generation. I assume from this that the condition of the first humans was very healthy. I assume that we probably would consider Adam today as some kind of perfect specimen.

The gradual (rather than sudden) decline of health in the human race after the fall of man may have something to do with it.

The good book doesn't state that Eden was the only garden, does it? It simply recounts the tale of Adam and Eve, two people who fell. The world may have teemed with gardens!

Incidentally, ancient Sumerian writings assign lives of thousands of years to their legendary kings. Since these writings predate Genesis, is it not permissible to surmise that Eden was not even the first garden or organic man-factory in time?

It says it was THE garden into which God placed the first created man. Therein is its significance whether there were other gardens or not.

It simply recounts the tale of Adam and Eve, two people who fell. The world may have teemed with gardens!

The woman of the couple was called Eve - because she was the mother of all living. So it is not communicated to us that they were just any couple. Rather it teaches that they were the first couple.

Incidentally, ancient Sumerian writings assign lives of thousands of years to their legendary kings. Since these writings predate Genesis, is it not permissible to surmise that Eden was not even the first garden or organic man-factory in time?

I don't think this proves that longevity did not occur.

And the account of Genesis was probably an oral tradition long before writing was invented. The fact that Sumerian writing may predate the writing of Genesis, therefore, is not terribly signicant to the account being history or legend.

Same holds for writings about a great flood which predate the writing of Genesis. How do you know they were not embellishments of an oral tradition which found its written form in Genesis? When things were first written down is not the only criteria for judging their veracity.